Sooner or later, HD-DVD/BR double, triple, quadruple dipping will occur. (1 Viewer)

[Chad R]

Or, they release the best version they can at the time, and when technology later improves giving them the opportunity to release a cleaner, better version, they do.

And if they do, you don't have to buy. If they put out a subpar product originally, you don't have to buy. The option to buy or not always rests with you.

 

[JediFonger]

the option to buy rests with the consumer, that goes without saying =). OF COURSE! =). that doesn't stop us from examining a $10-30 purchasing decision to death! =). that's the fun of this forum and forums like it.

imho, the window of opportunity for technology to improve that great isn't much. i'll give you an example of what i mean.

check out the DVD transfer of the film Contact. the DVD came out December 30th, 1997. if they did a SE today, it would look only marginally better. why? even with the tools they had back then, they were able to produce a reference grade DVD. how? by keeping the original film negatives pristine before committing it digitally.

conversely, look at the first editions of Terminator2 (single and multidisc ultimate editions in 2000) compared to the extreme edition (2003). i thought jim cameron was a technophile! the first ed's looked blurry, film negative dirty and just downright bad. even Contact (1997) looked better than it! that's just no excuse @all! why not release the 2003 edition (pristine print) in 2000? i paid twice for that movie =(. ah well.

why not do it right the first time, i pay once, and it shall remain in the collection as a good memory instead of a sour/bitter experience of price gouging?

 

[Don Solosan]

There is no one "right way." In the case of T2, I think the first time was optimized for people with average-sized 4:3 TV sets. Then when widescreen sets started selling, a version optimized for those. And now HD. The home video environment keeps changing, and I'm thankful that the studios aren't sitting back on old VHS transfers saying "that's good enough for them!"

 

[JediFonger]

Contact is an example of doing it the "right way" absolutely. regardless of 4:3 or 16:9, the player can scale either.

 

[Chad R]

And yet there's this:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...hlight=Contact

Some in the thread defend the transfer, but there are those that want a new edition, many that think that technology has improved since 1997 enough to warrant a new disc.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I usually dont like buying the same title over and over again. But when there is a big boost in quality because of new technology. I am willing to spend the money and buy the title all over again. What I really hate is when they release a title on dvd and then in a resonably short amount of time they release the same title again but ether just add extras or add a DTS sound track. For a number of dvd titles that I allready own I would have no problem buying them again in HD. Lord Of The Rings, Star Wars, Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Apollo 13 and some other titles, these would be the ones I would be buying without question. How ever I have a feeling that within 3 years they will ofter DTS-HD on those same titles that originally where only offered in Dolby Digital Plus.

 

[JediFonger]

chad, my position hasn't changed. even if they went lowry digital on Contact (highly unlikely) and cleaned up, washed up and polished every single element of the film frame, the transfer will only be marginally better on a current SD-DVD. why? they already did it "right" the first time.

dave, that's why i've seen saying that they should've done it "right" the first time. include as many things as they can. since they CAN do so now without any space issues (like DTS was with SD-DVDs), i expect to have the full array of DTS-HD, TrueHD (which renders DD+ useless) on everything.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

get over it, as long as they are adding value for each dip, then it is justified. furthermore, no one has a gun to your head telling you to purchase an inferior edition. there is netflix and blockbuster if you are morally opposed.

Furthermore, for all the joy LOTR brings to me, i had no problem purchasing multiple editions and will buy every edition they produce b/c Peter Jackson insists they be substantially different versions. When you space it out, i've watched those DVDs at leat 10 times each, at $35 max for the special editions that's 3 dollars a play and $1.50 for the normal editions, I do not feel ripped off or cheated.

A good policy to have is to not impulse buy and simply buy movies you know you will watch multiple times.

This is America, they have a right to profit however they wish and the only right you have is the one simply not to buy if you feel mistreated.

 

[Ryan-G]

It depends for me. If it's a favorite title, or substantially different transfer/extras I might buy it. But generally, it has to be an extended edition for me to bite.

I can guarantee there'll be multi-dipping in the new formats, I mean honestly, why would that change?

 

[Chad R]

But, from Warners perspective there is a market for a new version of that movie. It's supply and demand. People demand, studio supplies. So, if there's someone who buys it, and it makes them happy, like LOTR does for Tony, then there's a good reason to release multiple versions. Trust me, studios don't just pull titles out of a hat, they do a little research to see if there's demand, and only release multiple versions if there is.

 

[JediFonger]

the value of each dip worth $17? $20?

T2: EE was worth the $22 i spent the moment it came out. loved the movie, the print was cleaned, HD-ized, etc. it's like a whole new movie! but then i look back and saw that i wasted $18 on the Ultimate Edition. spent a total of about $40 on T2. i don't mind waiting those 3 years for EE (i've got other things to watch). but if they came out with EE in the first place, i'd only be spending $18.

if Contact came out with a SE today with new HD transfer, it's not worth $18 more than what i already spent. why? it'll only give me maybe 5-10% more pleasure. it's still SD-DVD. the first disc already optimized for the medium as far as they can do it in '97. it won't be leaps and bounds if done today.

re: studio research, sure. it's like using a hammer to swat a fly or casting a 10' x 6' fishing net to catch a goldfish, or like the spiderweb spun by shelob in return of the king, etc. whomever they sucker in equals profit for popular films like star wars/lotr/matrix/indy/backtofuture/etc. you see less of that situation on genres like silent films. repackaging still happens, but the same titles standalone as re-releases is fewer than popular blockbusters. i would prefer studios to catch (if i was a bug) me by setting one of those electric lamps. i'm the bug, i see the light at the end of the tunnel, i fly towards and ZAP my wallet's empty.

i prefer a high quality expenditure on a high quality transfer products, i don't mind spending, just prefer to do it once for each film.